Notable Supreme Court Cases & Rulings

Plea bargaining becomes a whole new ballgame...Supreme Court Makes Landmark Ruling On Plea DealsMar. 21, 2012 - WASHINGTON - A divided Supreme Court ruled for the first time Wednesday that the guarantee of effective legal representation applies to plea-bargain agreements, significantly expanding the constitutional rights of defendants as they move through the criminal-justice system.

In a pair of cases decided by 5-4 votes, the court opened a new avenue for defendants to challenge their sentences on grounds that their attorneys gave them faulty advice, lawyers on both sides of the issue said. The vast majority of criminal cases end with a guilty plea rather than a trial, and the ruling could affect thousands of cases. "The reality is that plea bargains have become so central to the administration of the criminal-justice system that defense counsel have responsibilities ... that must be met to render the adequate assistance of counsel that the Sixth Amendment requires," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote. He was joined by the court's liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

That is the case, the majority said, even if the defendant is unquestionably guilty or has received a fair trial after turning down a plea bargain. Since more than nine in 10 cases involve a plea rather than trial, the decision will mean greater constitutional scrutiny of the negotiations central to almost every prosecution. "It seems to me the court has created a new body of constitutional law," said Connecticut Assistant State's Attorney Michael Proto, who wrote a brief for 27 states urging the court not to extend the constitutional guarantee to plea bargains. "There are a lot of unanswered questions, and it is going to spawn a lot of litigation."

Margaret Colgate Love, who helped write an American Bar Association brief that advocated for the court's action, agreed about its impact. "What makes these cases so important is the Supreme Court's full-on recognition of the centrality of plea bargaining in the modern criminal-justice system and its extension of constitutional discipline to the outcome of the plea process," she said. The decisions prompted a scathing rebuttal from Justice Antonin Scalia, delivered from the bench to signal his displeasure.

Scalia called the rulings "absurd" and said the majority had twisted the constitutional right to assure defendants get a fair trial into one in which they have a chance "to escape a fair trial and get less punishment than they deserve." He added in a written dissent, "Today, however, the Supreme Court of the United States elevates plea bargaining from a necessary evil to a constitutional entitlement."

The David vs. Goliath couple trump the EPA...Supreme Court sides with Idaho property owners over EPAMarch 21, 2012 | WASHINGTON &#8211; The Supreme Court has come forcefully down on the side of an Idaho couple in its fight against the Environmental Protection Agency, unanimously ruling Wednesday that the couple can challenge an EPA order to stop construction of their home on property designated a wetland.

Mike and Chantell Sackett bought their land near a scenic lake for $25,000, but when they decided to build a property there in 2007, the EPA ordered a halt, saying the Clean Water Act requires that wetlands not be disturbed without a permit. They've been fighting for the right to challenge the decision in court for several years, and facing millions of dollars in fines over the land. The couple complained there was no reasonable way to challenge the order, and noted they don't know why the EPA concluded there are wetlands on their lot, which is surrounded by a residential neighborhood with sewer lines and homes.

In an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court ruled the EPA cannot impose fines that could be as much as $75,000 a day without giving property owners the ability to challenge its actions. The ruling allows the couple to challenge the EPA head-on in court, but the real battle begins now. The case has brought attention to the EPA's reach. While the court only allowed a challenge to be brought, in a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito noted that the law allowing EPA to demand compliance is overly broad. "The reach of the Clean Water Act is notoriously unclear. Any piece of land that is wet at least part of the year is in danger of being classified by EPA employees as wetlands covered by the act, and according to the federal government, if property owners begin to construct a home on a lot that the agency thinks possesses the requisite wetness, the property owners are at the agency's mercy," Alito wrote.

"The court's decision provides a modest measure of relief," he added. "But the combination of the uncertain reach of the Clean Water Act and the draconian penalties imposed for the sort of violations alleged in this case still leaves most property owners with little practical alternative but to dance to the EPA's tune. Real relief requires Congress to do what it should have done in the first place: provide a reasonably clear rule regarding the reach of the Clean Water Act." The couple, which termed the battle "David versus Goliath," has earned support from several lawmakers who want to reduce the grasp of the EPA on private property. Reps. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Idaho Republican Sens. Mike Crapo and Jim Risch, all joined the Chantells and other couples in a forum last fall about limiting EPA authority.

Labrador congratulated the Sacketts after the ruling. "The federal government is an intimidating force against ordinary citizens, and standing up to its bureaucracy requires extraordinary bravery. Thanks to the unwavering courage and selfless sacrifice of the Sacketts, Americans everywhere will be guaranteed the right to appeal a decision imposed by a government agency. Their victory also safeguards individual property rights against the encroachment of the federal government, a fundamental assurance of our Constitution," he said.

I don't get it. How do I-the defendant-know about deals the prosecutor offered my attorney if they never tell me? Even the specific case mentioned in the article involved a guess about what might have happened, a stupid guess but a guess nevertheless.
I think it's usually 50-50 whether a defendant would suffer more if a trial followed. I pleaded guilty to a crime I didn't commit because I was about to lose my job for sneaking off to court every three weeks to wait for a hearing.

Plea bargaining should be prohibited. Over-charging should be prohibited.

Plea bargaining harms society, harms the victim, harms all future victims of that criminal, and benefits only the criminals. Well, it benefits the attorney for both sides but they're covered by the term criminals.

Granny hopes dem lib'ral, activist judges don't side with the terrorists...Supreme Court considers taking up anti-terror lawsMay 21, 2012 WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court, after a four-year break from terrorism issues, is set to decide as soon as today whether to again take up constitutional challenges to anti-terrorism laws involving wiretapping and the Guantanamo prisoners.

In one case, the Obama administration is asking the court to block a suit against the government's monitoring of international phone calls and emails. And in the other set of appeals, lawyers for six detainees at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are asking the justices to make good on their promise of four years ago and give the inmates a "meaningful opportunity" to go free. If not, the right to appeal given to the detainees in 2008 "will be a virtual dead letter," said Jonathan Hafetz, a law professor at Seton Hall University in New Jersey.

President George W. Bush maintained that the detainees were military prisoners who had no rights under American civilian law. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that the Constitution's right to habeas corpus extended to the hundreds of Guantanamo prisoners. They have a right to a "meaningful review" of their cases by a federal judge, said Justice Anthony Kennedy. Since then, no detainee has gone free based just on a court order. The Obama administration has agreed to send home dozens of detainees who were seen as no longer a danger. But whenever the administration has opposed a detainee's claim, it has won in the conservative-leaning U.S. court of appeals in Washington.

The justices, however, are more likely to hear the administration's appeal in the wiretapping case, Clapper v. Amnesty International. It poses the question of whether journalists, lawyers and human rights activists have standing to challenge wiretapping of suspects overseas because their private communications may be intercepted. In the last months of the Bush administration, Congress confirmed the government's broad power to monitor international phone calls and emails in an effort to detect terrorist plots. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 2008 allows extended electronic surveillance "targeting" non-Americans believed to be outside the United States and who raised the suspicions of U.S. intelligence officials.

The American Civil Liberties Union sued and said this "dragnet surveillance" would likely capture the private calls and emails of thousands of Americans who are not targets but who have contact with people abroad. They said this secret surveillance violates the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches.

Say what?? They never heard of fraud or misrepresentation???...Justices dismiss law making lying about military honors a crimeJune 28th, 2012 - The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a federal law making it a crime to falsely claim military medals earned.

The 6-3 ruling was a free speech victory but perhaps in name only - for a onetime California public official who publicly lied about winning the prestigious Medal of Honor. At issue is the constitutional value of false statements of fact, and whether Congress went too far when passing the Stolen Valor Act in 2006.

The ACLU's deputy legal director, Jameel Jaffer, said the ruling was right to reject. Perfectly respectable people sometimes lie to protect their privacy, avoid hurt feelings, make others feel better, duck minor obligations, or protect themselves and others from prejudice. If the court had endorsed the governments sweeping argument, the government could regulate these false statements, and even criminalize them. The First Amendment reserves to individual citizens, not the government, the right to separate what is true from what is false, and to decide what ideas to introduce into private conversation and public debate. Todays decision is an important reaffirmation of those crucial rights.

Veteran organizations are disappointed with the decision. Here are some of the statements: The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. is greatly disappointed in todays Supreme Court decision that overturns the Stolen Valor Act of 2005. Despite the ruling, the VFW will continue to challenge far-fetched stories, and to publicize these false heroes to the broadest extent possible as a deterrent to others.
-Richard Denoyer, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States Commander in Chief

"While we are obviously saddened and aggrieved by the overall decision in this case, we felt good about the portions of the decision which suggest that a more narrowly tailored bill which incorporates traditional fraud elements would be upheld. Since the vast bulk of the more notorious valor thieves engage in this to gain something of value as a result, they will not be able to claim legal immunity once a new bill is passed."
-Fang Wong, American Legion National Commander

The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from two scientists who have been challenging the funding for the work.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia earlier this year threw out their lawsuit challenging federal funding for the research, which is used in pursuit of cures to deadly diseases. Opponents claimed the National Institutes of Health was violating the 1996 Dickey-Wicker law that prohibits taxpayer financing for work that harms an embryo.

Researchers hope one day to use stem cells in ways that cure spinal cord injuries, Parkinson's disease and other ailments.

High court rejects Medicare challengeJanuary 7, 2013 WASHINGTON (AP) &#8212; The Supreme Court has turned away a challenge from former House Majority Leader Dick Armey and other Social Security recipients who say they have the right to reject Medicare in favor of continuing health coverage from private insurers.

The justices did not comment Monday in letting stand a federal appeals court ruling that held that there is no way for people who receive Social Security to reject Medicare benefits.

Armey, a Texas Republican, and two other former federal employees say private insurance covers more than Medicare. Two other plaintiffs are wealthy individuals who have high deductible private insurance and prefer to pay for their health care.

The case was funded by a group called The Fund For Personal Liberty, which says its purpose is to take on burdensome government regulations.

Anders wrote: I am all for more rights and protection of the accused, but it seems the Supreme Court has been overextending its authority recently. What exactly are the limits to the power of the Supreme Court?

Good question...

... under our system of checks and balances...

... supposedly the other two branches can get together and overturn a Scotus ruling by passing legislation to negate its effect...

... however, in my lifetime I can't recall that ever happening...

... probably because they mainly stick to matters of constitutional law...

... which gives them the last say in what is constitutional...

... and what is not...

... which gives them more ability to check the other two branches of gov't.

Searches limited to immediate vicinity when suspect not home...High court limits detention powers in searches19 Feb.`13 WASHINGTON (AP)  The Supreme Court has limited the power of police to detain people who are not at home when their residence is to be searched.

By a 6-3 vote Tuesday, the justices sided with a Long Island, N.Y., man who was picked up about three-quarters of a mile away from his apartment as police searched it for a gun. Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his opinion for the court's majority that the authority of police to detain people found at home during a search authorized by a warrant is limited to the immediate vicinity of the premises. He said that concern for officer safety diminishes the farther away from the home the detention occurs.

In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer said he would have upheld lower court rulings in favor of the police "in light of the risks of flight, of evidence destruction, and of human injury present in this and similar cases." Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas joined Breyer's dissent. The Fourth Amendment usually requires police to strongly suspect an individual has committed a crime before he can be detained. But the court in 1981 ruled in Michigan v. Summers that police could detain people without suspicion during a search to keep them from doing harm to officers, keep them from fleeing and allowing them to, for example, open a door instead of having the police bash it in.

In this case, Chunon Bailey, also known by the alias of Polo, left his basement apartment in Wyandanch, N.Y., shortly before police began their search. Unaware of the impending search, Bailey and another man got into Bailey's black Lexus and drove away, apparently to get the friend home by 10 p.m. to comply with a condition of his parole. Officers followed in an unmarked car and stopped the Lexus a few minutes later. Bailey and his friend were handcuffed and taken back to the apartment where, by then, police had found a gun and drugs. Bailey tried and failed to get courts to throw out anything he said to police when he was stopped and also a key to the apartment police found when they patted him down. He was found guilty of cocaine possession and other crimes and sentenced to 30 years in prison.

Kennedy said none of the concerns present in the court's 1981 case justified Bailey's detention. "The categorical authority to detain incident to the execution of a search warrant must be limited to the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched," he said. To do otherwise gives the police too much discretion, Kennedy said. But the ruling may not let Bailey off the hook entirely. Kennedy said the government still can argue that another rationale made the decision to stop and detain Bailey legal. The justices ordered the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York to take a new look at Bailey's case. The case is Bailey v. U.S., 11-770.

Plea bargaining becomes a whole new ballgame...Supreme Court Makes Landmark Ruling On Plea DealsMar. 21, 2012 - WASHINGTON - A divided Supreme Court ruled for the first time Wednesday that the guarantee of effective legal representation applies to plea-bargain agreements, significantly expanding the constitutional rights of defendants as they move through the criminal-justice system.

Click to expand...

Personally, as a libertarian, I oppose plea bargains as they are based upon coercion by the prosecution to obtain a conviction. Over 90% of all criminal convictions are the result of a plea bargains and in all cases coercion exists. The perfect example of this is the Tommy Chong conviction.

Federal agents actually used entrapment to arrest Tommy Chong and then threatened to prosecute his wife and his son if he refused to plead guilty. Faced with the possibility of his wife and son being sent to prison he was coerced into pleading guilty as opposed to fighting his own case based upon entrapment. That was pure BS and violated his legal Rights to a fair trial.

I also believe that the 2nd degree murder charges against George Zimmerman are an attempt to obtain a conviction for the lesser crime of aggravated assault. Zimmerman is faced with the possibility of 20 years or more in prison if convicted of 2nd Degree Murder but would probably only receive about 5 years if he plea bargains this down to aggravated assault. That's one hell of a choice to have to make. Fight it and possibly lose and go to jail for over 20 years or plea bargain for a much shorter sentence.

It would be my position that pleading guilty to a lesser crime should not be allowed nor should the prosecution of others be dropped in a plea bargain deal. The crime should be established properly by the prosecution and coercion should never be allowed such as was the situation in the Tommy Chong case.

A person should not be subjected to "greater punishment" because they choose to oppose the prosecution in court.

Searches limited to immediate vicinity when suspect not home...High court limits detention powers in searches19 Feb.`13 WASHINGTON (AP)  The Supreme Court has limited the power of police to detain people who are not at home when their residence is to be searched.

Click to expand...

This is fascinating. Breyer has finally done something important and he had to side with Breyer and Alito to do it. Clarence Thomas has seniority on the losing side of a 6-3 decision. That might be the first time in his career that he has had seniority on either side even in defeat. He chose correctly in letting Breyer write the dissent. If Breyer could have persuaded any of the women to come over he might have ended up in the majority, making it the high point of both Breyer and Thomas' careers. Watch and see if they collaborate again in the future-if only to make their careers memorable for something.
Meanwhile Roberts' real motivation in letting Obamacare through may be coming to light. By carving his decision so carefully he may have stolen the hearts of Sotomayor and Kagan and will have them on his side in many controversial cases in the future.
As usual Kennedy gets to write the big decision, because whenever he agrees with Roberts they win.
this may also mean that Alito is getting ready to break off from Roberts and possibly overthrow scalia as the voice of conservatism on the court. Scaia is almost 20 years older than Alito so Alito can expect to inherit that mantle, but seizing it prematurely in a coup might make for high drama.
This decision appears to be written so narrowly that it will not change the lives of any police officers, just give defense attorneys one more small point to stall the case and increase their income by a few thousand dollars a few times per year. (that's the purpose of most laws anyway.)

Court pondering if allowing DNA on those not convicted is a violation of the 5th amendment...Court takes up question of arrestee DNA samplingFeb 26,`13 WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday struggled with what one of the justices called its most important criminal procedure case in decades, whether to let police take DNA from those arrested, but not convicted, in hopes of using it to solve old cases.

Justices seemed conflicted over whether police have a right to take genetic information from people who have only been arrested but not yet convicted of a crime without getting a judge's approval first, or if the government's interest in solving cold cases trumped the immediate privacy rights of those under police suspicion of other crimes. One justice seemed to make clear what he thought, with Justice Samuel Alito, a former prosecutor calling the arguments the court's "most important criminal procedure case" in decades.

Alito compared DNA swabbing to fingerprinting, saying police can use the genetic information of suspects in the same way they do the inked impression of suspects' fingers - to identify the person and match that person to older crimes that haven't yet been solved. "Why isn't this fingerprinting of the 21st century?" he said. Getting DNA swabs from criminals is common. All 50 states and the federal government take cheek swabs from convicted criminals to check against federal and state databanks, with the court's blessing. But now 28 states and the federal government now also take samples from people who have been arrested for various crimes, long before their guilt or innocence has been proven.

According to court documents, the FBI's Combined DNA Index System or CODIS - a coordinated system of federal, state and local databases of DNA profiles - contains more than 10 million criminal profiles and 1.1 million arrestee profiles. In the case before the court, a 53-year-old woman was raped and robbed but no one was arrested. Almost six years later, Alonzo King was arrested and charged with felony second-degree assault. Taking advantage of a Maryland law that allowed DNA tests following some felony arrests, police took a cheek swab of King's DNA which matched a sample from the 2003 Salisbury rape. King was convicted of rape and sentenced to life in prison.

King eventually pled guilty to a lesser charge of misdemeanor assault, a crime for which Maryland cannot take DNA samples. The state courts said it violated King's rights for the state to take his DNA based on an arrest alone. The state Court of Appeals said King had "a sufficiently weighty and reasonable expectation of privacy against warrantless, suspicionless searches." The Supreme Court is reviewing that decision.

Suit over FISA thrown out...Justices block lawsuit over foreign intelligence surveillanceFebruary 26th, 2013 - The Supreme Court rejected an effort by a group of attorneys, journalists and others to proceed with a lawsuit over the federal government's sweeping electronic monitoring of foreigners suspected of terrorism or spying.

The 5-4 conservative majority on Tuesday concluded that the plaintiffs lacked "standing" or jurisdiction to proceed, without a specific showing they have been monitored. The National Security Agency has in turn refused to disclose monitoring specifics, which detractors call "Catch-22" logic. Justice Samuel Alito said plaintiffs "cannot demonstrate that the future injury they purportedly fear is certainly impending." The justices did not address the larger questions of the program's constitutionality, and this ruling will make it harder for future lawsuits to proceed. At issue: Can these American plaintiffs who deal with overseas clients and co-workers file suit if they reasonably suspect - but cannot know for sure - that the government was reading and hearing their sensitive communications? The personal liberty versus national security case is one of the biggest the high court is addressing this term.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was revised by Congress in 2008 to give the attorney general and the director of national intelligence greater authority to order "mass acquisition" of electronic traffic from suspected foreign terrorists or spies. The law previously required the government to justify a national security interest before any monitoring of phone calls and e-mails originating in another country. A federal judge had to sign any search warrant. The larger issue involves the constitutionality of the federal government's electronic monitoring of targeted foreigners. A federal appeals court in New York ruled against the Obama administration, prompting the current appeal. After such "warrantless wiretapping" was exposed, President George W. Bush and his congressional allies moved to amend the existing law, which supporters say is designed to target only foreigners living outside the United States.

Alito said that there were enough legal safeguards to ensure that any information gathered by the NSA would be used properly in court, and that a judicial FISA panel could review any particular surveillance. "If the government were to prosecute one of the (plaintiffs') foreign clients using authorized surveillance, the government would be required to make a disclosure," Alito said. He was supported by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer said the harm claimed by the plaintiffs "is not speculative. Indeed it is as likely to take place as are most future events that commonsense inference and ordinary knowledge of human nature tell us will happen." He was backed by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International told the court that little is known about the FISA Amendments Act, such as who has been targeted, how often it has been used and whether any problems or abuses have occurred. A key point of contention was whether those amendments would stifle free speech of the work of lawyers, journalists and activists by forcing them to do their jobs less diligently, for fear of being monitored and perhaps prosecuted. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, speaking for the Justice Department, said that to the contrary, if the lawyer "took precautions, it would be because of a belief that (he or she) had to comply with an ethics rule, and the ethics rule would be the cause of (him or her) taking those precautions." Either way, he said, there was no "concrete application" of the law permitting someone to come into court and make a claim based on "speculation." The case is Clapper v. Amnesty International USA (11-1025).

So it looks like the conservatives on the court are giving a liberal Presidential administration the right to take away the liberties liberals have given. This is the problem with political labels. Liberalism has not seen the light, only the way to get what they want by using the confused logic of conservatives against them. They already achieved this with the concept of stare decisis, which forces conservatives who hold to it to uphold past liberal court decisions while leaving liverals free to expand those same decisions.
The other case is tricky, it might prompt officers to charge everyone they arrest with an outrageous false charge just so they can collect his DNA and find out if he ever really did something bad. That would be bad even though we'll solve many crimes.

More on Clapper v. Amnesty International, No. 11-1025...Justices Turn Back Challenge to Broader U.S. EavesdroppingFebruary 26, 2013 WASHINGTON  The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned back a challenge to a federal law that broadened the governments power to eavesdrop on international phone calls and e-mails.

The decision, by a 5-to-4 vote that divided along ideological lines, probably means the Supreme Court will never rule on the constitutionality of that 2008 law. More broadly, the ruling illustrated how hard it is to mount court challenges to a wide array of antiterrorism measures, including renditions of terrorism suspects to foreign countries and targeted killings using drones, in light of the combination of government secrecy and judicial doctrines limiting access to the courts. Absent a radical sea change from the courts, or more likely intervention from the Congress, the coffin is slamming shut on the ability of private citizens and civil liberties groups to challenge government counterterrorism policies, with the possible exception of Guantánamo, said Stephen I. Vladeck, a law professor at American University.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said that the journalists, lawyers and human rights advocates who challenged the constitutionality of the law could not show they had been harmed by it and so lacked standing to sue. The plaintiffs fear that they would be subject to surveillance in the future was too speculative to establish standing, he wrote. Justice Alito also rejected arguments based on the steps the plaintiffs had taken to escape surveillance, including traveling to meet sources and clients in person rather than talking to them over the phone or sending e-mails. They cannot manufacture standing by incurring costs in anticipation of nonimminent harms, he wrote of the plaintiffs.

It is of no moment, Justice Alito wrote, that only the government knows for sure whether the plaintiffs communications have been intercepted. It is the plaintiffs burden, he wrote, to prove they have standing by pointing to specific facts, not the governments burden to disprove standing by revealing details of its surveillance priorities. In dissent, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote that the harm claimed by the plaintiffs was not speculative. Indeed, he wrote, it is as likely to take place as are most future events that common-sense inference and ordinary knowledge of human nature tell us will happen.

Under the system of warrantless surveillance that was put in place by the Bush administration shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, aspects of which remain secret, the National Security Agency was authorized to monitor Americans international phone calls and e-mails without a warrant. After The New York Times disclosed the program in 2005 and questions were raised about its constitutionality, Congress in 2008 amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, granting broad power to the executive branch to conduct surveillance aimed at persons overseas without an individual warrant. The Obama administration defended the law in court, and a Justice Department spokesman said the government was obviously pleased with the ruling.

Supremes takin' another look at Section 5 of Voting Rights Act of `65...US Supreme Court Reviews Key Civil Rights Law February 27, 2013 WASHINGTON  A key civil rights law from the 1960s that helped ensure minorities could vote is now under review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in the midst of the struggle for civil rights, particularly in the states of the Deep South where racial discrimination was widespread. At that time, local officials were known for making it difficult for African-Americans to vote. A key part of the law known as Section 5 gives the federal government the power to pre-approve or block changes in voting procedures put forward by states and local governments in areas where African-Americans historically faced enormous difficulties in voting. Under the U.S. Constitution, states have most of the power when it comes to running elections.

The law has been re-authorized by Congress several times, most recently in 2006. But now some conservative groups and officials from some of the states affected by the law say the statute is outdated and no longer necessary. Butch Ellis is county attorney for Shelby County, Alabama, which is challenging a key part of the Voting Rights Act. He spoke to reporters outside the high court. They have made great strides over the last 48 years," said Ellis. "I have been the county attorney since 1964. I was 24-years old when we came under Section 5 [of the law]. I am 73 (as of) last weekend and we are still under the same formula, none of which has applied to us in many, many, many years.

Some of the more conservative justices on the Supreme Court seemed to express skepticism about the law during oral arguments on Wednesday. They question whether the remedy Congress agreed to in 1965 is still warranted nearly 50 years later. The Voting Rights Act was a product of the bloody struggle for civil rights in the southern U.S. in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Civil rights groups and the Obama administration defended the law in oral arguments before the high court. They acknowledge some progress on race relations has been made in the states covered by the law in the past several decades. But they also argue the law is still a useful tool to ensure that states and local jurisdictions protect the right of all Americans to vote, regardless of race.

Granny says ya s'posed to be a citizen to vote in our `lections...Top US Court Weighs Voter Law Against Illegal Immigrants March 18, 2013 WASHINGTON  The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Monday on whether the state of Arizona has the right to craft its own voting laws to prevent illegal immigrants from casting ballots, a process critics say opens the door to discrimination against legal voters.

Arizona, which shares a border with Mexico, has some of the strongest anti-immigration laws in the United States and the voting rights case is the latest in its efforts to deal with non-U.S. citizens illegally in the state. It is asking the Supreme Court to uphold a 2004 state law requiring local voting applicants to provide physical proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate, passport, tribal forms or a drivers license. Opponents of Arizonas voter-approved Proposition 200 say it violates the decade-old National Voter Registration Act, a federal law requiring voting applicants to state they are U.S. citizens without providing any proof. People caught lying can face perjury charges.

Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne argued the constitutionality of Proposition 200 before the Court Monday, saying an honor system is not strong enough to prevent voter fraud. Jesus Gonzalez is the lead plaintiff in the case. He tried to register to vote right after becoming a U.S. citizen but was rejected twice by state officials. Gonzalez used both his drivers license and his naturalization certificate number, but officials said they still could not confirm his citizenship. Civil rights groups supporting Gonzalez say his story is not uncommon. In a legal brief submitted to the court, the groups say more than 31,000 voting applicants were rejected between January 2005 and September 2007. Of that number, 11,000 eventually succeeded in registering to vote after repeated attempts.

The groups say Proposition 200 violates the U.S. Constitution because it requires naturalized citizens - predominantly Latinos and Asians - to surmount additional and unique hurdles to exercise their fundamental right to vote. The unique obstacles presented by the law effectively relegated this population to second-class citizenship, they write in the brief. The Obama administration is on their side, although it is focusing on another aspect of the case. It has filed court documents supporting the ruling of a federal appeals court, which ruled against Proposition 200 because it said federal law overrides state law.

The outcome of the case could determine how other states approach the issue. If the Supreme Court upholds Arizonas request to determine its own voting guidelines, other states could follow suit, opening the door for new sets of rules like Floridas attempt in 2005 to require voter applicants to prove their mental capacity.

Say what?? They never heard of fraud or misrepresentation???...Justices dismiss law making lying about military honors a crimeJune 28th, 2012 - The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a federal law making it a crime to falsely claim military medals earned.

Click to expand...

Fraud and misrepresentation are only relevant if a person profits from the fraud or misrepresentation in which case it would be a civil and not a criminal act. The person "defrauded by misrepresentation" is able to seek compensation and even punative damages in a civil lawsuit under current law.

It is my belief that no law or action in dispute should be ruled "constitutional" unless all of the Supreme Court justices agree that it is constitutional. Whenever we see a decision that is disputable it always relates to a split decision by the US Supreme Court where the arguments by the disseniting justices have merit.

We can always live without a law or action of dubious constitutionality and the fact that any Supreme Court Justice would oppose the law or action establishes doubt as to the constitutionality of the law or action. The US Supreme Court should be required to affirm the constitutionality of any law or action by unanimous consent for the protections of the Rights of the Person in the United States. It is a high standard but when it comes to our Rights and the authority of government it should require this high standard. Split decisions compromise our inalienable Rights.